Trial reportThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2025
Economic evaluation of intensive home treatment in comparison to care as usual alongside a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Economic evaluation of Learning Through Play Plus in comparison to usual care for depressed mothers alongside a randomised controlled trial.BMC health services research · 2026Trial
- Cost Utility of Intensive Home Treatment Compared With Acute Psychiatric Inpatient Admission.JAMA network open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is a dearth of research on the cost-effectiveness of intensive home treatment (IHT), an alternative to psychiatric hospitalisation for patients experiencing psychiatric crises. We therefore present a health economic evaluation alongside a pre-randomised controlled trial of IHT compared to care as usual (CAU).
methodPatients were pre-randomised to IHT or CAU using a double-consent open-label Zelen design. For the cost-utility analysis, the EuroQol 5-dimensional instrument was used. The cost-effectiveness was assessed using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS).
resultsData of 198 patients showed that each additional QALY gained from offering IHT instead of CAU was on average associated with an extra cost of €48,003. There is a 38% likelihood that IHT will lead to more QALYs at lower costs compared to CAU. An improvement of one additional point on the BPRS by offering IHT instead of CAU was associated with an extra cost of €19,203. There is a 38% likelihood that IHT will lead to higher BPRS score improvements at lower costs. Based on the NICE willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 (€35,000) per QALY, IHT could potentially be considered cost-effective with a likelihood of 55-60% when viewed from a societal perspective, and > 75% from a health care perspective.
conclusionsIHT appears slightly more attractive in terms of cost-utility and cost-effectiveness than CAU, although differences in both costs and effects are small especially when viewed from the societal costs perspective. From the health care sector costs perspective, IHT has a higher probability of being cost-effective compared to CAU. TRIALS REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register: NTR6151.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.